R v Banks

Date

4 July 1916

Legislation

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, s.5(1), 5(2).
s.8(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972

Keywords

meaning of "reasonable" belief; duties of prosecuting counsel

Counsel

S. R. C. Bosanquet, F. J. Tucker, Cotes-Preedy

Solicitors

T. A. Matthews, Hereford; Director of Public Prosecutions

Judge

Ridley, Avory, and Atkin JJ

Court

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported

[1916] 2 KB 621

Summary

By s. 5(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, any person who unlawfully carnally knows any girl of or above the age of thirteen and under the age of sixteen years was guilty of a misdemeanour. s. 5(2) of the same act provides a defence if the person so charged "had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years".

Banks was convicted under this section and appealed on the basis of his “reasonable belief.”

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that:

• the phrase "had reasonable cause to believe" means "had reasonable cause to believe, and did in fact believe," i.e., that the person charged believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was at least sixteen years of age; and
• prosecuting counsel should not press a jury for conviction and should regard themselves as 'ministers of justice' assisting in its administration rather than as advocates.

This case was distinguished in White v. Proudbrook [1988] RTR 163, in which it was held that there was no requirement for an officer to actually believe that the defendant was unable to provide a breath specimen for medical reasons under s.8(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972.